Landing surfaces or pits are well-known in the prior art. For example, it is well-known to construct a landing pit so as to decrease deceleration of the athlete's descending body in order to minimize or at least reduce risk of injury.
One construction well known in the art is the honeycomb structure. The honeycomb construction typically includes a piece of foam enclosed in a protective layer or cover. The foam has openings or holes in various positions which allow for displacement of air upon impact to break the fall of the athlete. However, the force of impact is absorbed in the landing surface at the point of impact rather than being distributed throughout the entire construction.
These structures have been insufficient due to "jarring effects" or "bottoming out" by the user. Attempts to remedy this problem have included constructing landing pits with a combination of foam sections or layers having various densities. For example, one foam section may be included for comfort, while another, having a different density, may be utilized to prevent the athlete from bottoming out. Still another channeled section having yet another density may be employed to regulate the flow of air that is expelled upon impact. However, such structures do not account for individual disparities in velocity, mass or surface area upon impact. Rather, prior art constructions have generally been constructed based on an average of variables of the typical users.
Consequently, slower and/or lighter athletes still experience a "jarring effect" as the landing surface does not expel enough air. In contrast, a heavier and/or faster athlete often experiences a feeling of "bottoming out". This is attributable to the athlete's surpassing the normal or average expectancy of foam compression. Similar problems occur in the area of high jump and pole vault events where there are substantial variations in heights descended from. Further, these structures do not provide a single density unit which is capable of both controlling deceleration, while simultaneously compensating for a multitude of variables on an individual basis.
Another disadvantage associated with the prior art occurs when two or more types of foam are laminated together. For example, typical prior art constructions utilize a lesser grade of foam having a smaller density as the top layer. For instance, a 1.2 lb/ft.sup.3 top layer placed on 1.5 lb/ft.sup.3 is available. However, the difference in foam properties frequently causes the top layer to degrade more rapidly than the underlying layer, thereby reducing the product life of the landing surface.
Still another disadvantage found in the prior art is the presence of large air channels in the structure. Large air channels lack accuracy and selectivity in displacing air. As a result of the larger openings or holes present in prior art constructions, deceleration and comfort of the athlete are sacrificed.
It would therefore be desirable to provide a single density landing surface system which is capable of compensating for many variables without the necessity of combining a variety of different density foam sections in order to overcome the problems associated with the prior art.